Wisconsin native, conservative critic of everything.
"Once abolish the God, and the government becomes the God." ---G K Chesterton
"The only objective of Liberty is Life" --G K Chesterton
"Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions" --G K Chesterton
"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling

Monday, October 31, 2011

So. It's Warmer! "Why" Remains the Question

For those who thought that the globe was NOT warming, ......well........it appears that it IS.

A prominent physicist and skeptic of global warming spent two years trying to find out if mainstream climate scientists were wrong. In the end, he determined they were right: Temperatures really are rising rapidly.

The study of the world’s surface temperatures by Richard Muller was partially bankrolled by a foundation connected to global warming disbelievers. He pursued long-held skeptic theories in analyzing the data. He was spurred to action because of “Climategate,” a British scandal involving hacked emails of scientists.

Yet he found that the land is 1.6 degrees warmer than in the 1950s.

The larger question--and the far more important one--is "Why?" Sun? Oceans? Cow Farts?

Another: "So What"? Warming, in and of itself, is not necessarily a bad thing, within some limits.

In fact, Prof Curry [Ga. Tech] said, the project’s research data show there has been no increase in world temperatures since the end of the Nineties – a fact confirmed by a new analysis that The Mail on Sunday has obtained. --HotAir quoting Daily Mail

Also--from the above essay--remember that correlation and causation are two different things.

Ah,Spicey and Struppster....this is "research by press release". His research partner (Curry) is waving the Bullshit Flag.

I thought any research sponsored by Koch bros. was suspect anyway. Why are the Warmistas saying it's good now?

We "deniers" are questioning the science, not the condition. I ask this question: define for me the "optimal climate". Give me the "bogey" to hit. Is the past 100 years the optimal? Or was it the Middle Warming Period? Or maybe it was the Little Ice Age? Tell me what you think should be the "perfect" climate and why. Then we can negotiate from there. The rest is junk science. And what of "models" that even fail to "predict the past"? They are supposed to have any degree of accuracy into the future? Seriously, people. God is laughing at the Warmistas.

It might be argued that the atmosphere has magically adjusted over the last 200 years of smokestacks and tailpipes. When humans heat up the air, does it matter whether paleolithic warming trends represent an optimal temperature?

You lead from a premise that is inferred and far from proven. Correlation is not causation. When one considers the politicization and secrecy under which this research has been done, the "debate is over", "the science is settled", when many questions remain, one cannot help but be skeptical of the agenda.

Deekaman, I may showing a bit of anthropocentrism here, but I'd argue the optimal temperature to be the one under which humans have thrived and advanced. Pretty much ALL human development (beyond stone tools and fire) has been in the last 10,000 years. We moved from being hunter-gatherers to farmers to city dwellers to space explorers in that time. And in that span, for that entire 10,000 year period, we have lived within the bounds of a 1°C average global temperature range. I'd argue anything outside that range is getting dangerous.

And yes, current 100 year projections put us past that. The cost of migrating away from advancing coasts and no-longer arable land is going to be absolutely mind boggling. But then again, why would you care? You'll be raptured by then, right?

Spice: You should then look at the 10,000 year temperature trend. But even if you go back to 1659 and look at the CET, you will see what is a nearly linear trend (obviously "best fit") in temperature with zero correlation between temperature and CO2 emissions.

I'll let you find the resource for that data because, well, I know where it is already.

BTW, the cost of reducing CO2 to the levels you consider adequate to reach that "optimal climate" are no less mind boggling and will result in (I believe) far more deaths. But that's ok with you because you believe the world's population should be about 1 billion (of the "desirables", of course - those nasty Third-Worlders....why should they be allowed access to cheap and plentiful energy, anyway?). Right?